New MN study finds "past 30 day" e-cig usage survey data grossly distorts demographics of vapers

[Bill Godshall]

Critically important new Minnesota survey (which amazingly was published by tobacco Control) finds:

- “daily” e-cig use by 3.4% of current smokers, 2.0% of exsmokers, and just .05% of nonsmokers;

- “daily” vapers are far more likely than “infrequent” vapers to desire quitting or reducing tobacco use (i.e. cigarette smoking);

- e-cigs were used on “>5 of past 30 days” by 11.2% of current smokers, 2.7% of exsmokers and just .1% of nonsmokers;

- current smokers were 112 times more likely than nonsmokers (.112/.001) to use e-cigs on >5 of past 30 days, and exsmokers were 27 times more likely to do so (.027/.001);

- most nonsmokers who reported e-cig use in “past 30 days” did so on just one day;

- e-cig usage surveys should inquire about “frequent use” of e-cigs; and

- e-cig usage surveys that don’t inquire about daily or frequent vaping are misleading (including all e-cig usage surveys touted by Obama’s DHHS to demonize vaping and to lobby for FDA’s “deeming regulation” that would ban >99.9% of vapor products).

How to define e-cigarette prevalence? Finding clues in the use frequency distribution

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/conte.../tobaccocontrol-2015-052236_press_release.pdf


Jacob Sullum cited this study in:
Two surveys find that almost all regular vapers are smokers
Fears that e-cigarettes lure nonsmokers into nicotine habits seem to be unfounded.
Two Surveys Find That Almost All Regular Vapers Are Smokers - Hit & Run : Reason.com


It's now pretty clear to me why Obama's DHHS (and other e-cig prohibitionists) have refused to inquire about "daily" or "frequent" vaping in the surveys they have conducted, funded and relied upon to confuse and scare the news media and the public about vaping (and to lobby for FDA's deeming regulation that would ban >99.9% of vapor products now on the market).

 

[Bill Godshall]

This MN survey was cited in Jacob Sullum's new article that was mentioned in another thread at
Two new surveys put the final nail in the coffin of "gateway" fantasy | E-Cigarette Forum
but this MN survey is so important that it deserves it's own thread.

 

[skoony]

Thanks Bill.
Mike

 

[Anjaffm]

Excellent!

 

[Bill Godshall]

I'm bumping this because its probably the most important survey ever conducted on vaping.

It totally discredits all DHHS conducted and funded surveys on e-cig use (because they all relied upon "past 30 day" use)

Don't understand why so few folks have commented.

 

[nicnik]

I'm bumping this because its probably the most important survey ever conducted on vaping.

It totally discredits all DHHS conducted and funded surveys on e-cig use (because they all relied upon "past 30 day" use)

Don't understand why so few folks have commented.

You spoke to it very well, the BMJ articles you linked to are behind a paywall, and the other article was being discussed in another thread. Seems like your post was much appreciated, getting lots of likes.

 

[Jmf444]

I just emailed Dr Amato (like 5 minutes ago) and he responded quite quickly with a copy of the PDF and a willingness to answer any questions I (or anyone) may have about the paper. Is it against ECF policy for me to post the PDF directly here? Or should I upload it elsewhere and then link it?

*edit* It's 7 pages

 

[DrMA]

I just emailed Dr Amato (like 5 minutes ago) and he responded quite quickly with a copy of the PDF and a willingness to answer any questions I (or anyone) may have about the paper. Is it against ECF policy for me to post the PDF directly here? Or should I upload it elsewhere and then link it?

*edit* It's 7 pages

Probably best to upload it elsewhere and post link here. That would be much appreciated, BTW.

 

[Jmf444]

Uploaded to Scribd.com:

*if anyone knows how to get his as just a link, please fix it to that (not sure if its cool to have it as the media rather than an external link

 

[Robino1]

It definitely needs to be just linked. I'm not sure how to go about doing it myself. Tagging @retired1

 

[retired1]

Scribd is fine. May be good to provide a direct link so folks can download.

 

[Jmf444]

There's a download button at the bottom left next to the Scribd logo. I tried to put it as a direct link. That's what came up when I copy pasted the link

 

[sonicdsl]

The forum software likes to post things as media when it recognizes it. There are ways around it, but usually cumbersome.

 

[nicnik]

Uploaded to Scribd.com:

*if anyone knows how to get his as just a link, please fix it to that (not sure if its cool to have it as the media rather than an external link

Edit: That wasn't a link, just a url, so I guess this?

Scribd

OK, now I understand the link/unlink buttons Kent was talking about. Hightlight and push a button.

 

[Bill Godshall]

When I posted the MN survey last week (above), the full text version of the article was free of charge from Tobacco Control.

But since I posted the article's weblink here and e-mailed it to more than a thousand THR and vaping advocates, Tobacco Control has now put up a paywall requiring a subscription for the article. Damn those .......s at Tobacco Control.

But many thanks for reposting the article at Scribd
and for making the weblink available.

 

[nicnik]

When I posted the MN survey last week (above), the full text version of the article was free of charge from Tobacco Control.

But since I posted the article's weblink here and e-mailed it to more than a thousand THR and vaping advocates, Tobacco Control has now put up a paywall requiring a subscription for the article. Damn those .......s at Tobacco Control.

But many thanks for reposting the article at Scribd
and for making the weblink available.

It really is an important development, and deserves a lot of publicity, especially when the poorly designed surveys are bandied about by starving ANTZ. You and others were right that asking the right questions will tell a different story. And we were right in agreeing with you.

The truth this reveals undermines the foundation of the ANTZ anti-vaping agenda.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

When I posted the MN survey last week (above), the full text version of the article was free of charge from Tobacco Control.

But since I posted the article's weblink here and e-mailed it to more than a thousand THR and vaping advocates, Tobacco Control has now put up a paywall requiring a subscription for the article. Damn those .......s at Tobacco Control.

But many thanks for reposting the article at Scribd
and for making the weblink available.

If the results had been what they wanted they would they would be sending it out attached to a press release. I can't think of one of their press releases that had a link to a free study, most just reference a hard to find study that has nothing to do with the release or just puts the lie to the release.

Desk murderers All.

 

[nicnik]

If the results had been what they wanted they would they would be sending it out attached to a press release. I can't think of one of their press releases that had a link to a free study, most just reference a hard to find study that has nothing to do with the release or just puts the lie to the release.

Desk murderers All.

There was an anti-nicotine study (one of ANTZ' latest angles to try to kill THR) published in the spring that, according to Wikipedia, repeats the claims of danger from third hand vapor. The abstract doesn't include that claim, and the full article is behind a paywall. It's highly unethical for suggestions to be made that we oursleves are giving off toxic fumes, even when we aren't vaping, and not let us see what they are saying about us, without paying the reckless (at best, but probably dishonest, greedy and corrupt) outlet publishing it.

Same goes for a lot of the other trash studies demonizing us.

 

[caramel]

If they used federal funding, the whole article + the raw data they used should be available through FOIA request.